"The fall will probably kill you."

[arendt]

Most people have heard this classic exchange:

Butch Cassidy: Alright. I'll jump first.
Sundance Kid: No.
Butch Cassidy: Then you jump first.
Sundance Kid: No, I said.
Butch Cassidy: What's the matter with you?
Sundance Kid: I can't swim.
Butch Cassidy: Are you crazy? The fall will probably kill you.
Sundance Kid: Oh, shit...

Standard, ritual disclaimer: I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party.

But, let's talk about Joe Average, who is not a politics junkie. Who is too busy and too broke to waste time following the campaign play by play. Suppose HRC and Trump get the nomination. To Joe A., HRC is more of the posse that has chased the middle class into a dead end. HRC is a known quantity; and that quantity is asking for "more of the same" when many middle class people think that four more years of more of the same will sink them.

These people are desperate; and they are starting to think a "jump" is a better option than "four more years" of the status quo. Even if the "jump to Trump" means that the fall will kill America. They are that desperate. I simply do not see what narrative HRC is offering people vis a vis Trump. I see she keeps telling people that Bernie's program can't possibly get through Congress. But, she dodges the question of how her program would - unless it's more GOP-lite, or completely ineffectual tinkering at the edges.

And the desperate people see that. The neoliberal economy of the last 35 years has created that desperation, by union-busting, government-starving, privatizing, off-shoring, deregulation, and wage and benefit cutting. HRC is a charter member of the neoliberal establishment (which is sort of redundant, since the establishment of both parties is neoliberal). How does she dodge when Trump points out her years of shilling for the TPP?

As I see it, the danger is that Trump has no political record (he is even more of a blank slate than Obama was in 2008), so people can project their (twisted) hopes onto him; whereas everyone knows who HRC is, and Trump is great at attacking people.

Bottom Line: Trump doesn't have a record to defend (just a lifestyle - can you say: Let's talk about Bill Clinton?) Trump is a great attacker; and he can transfer, without any inconsistency, his effective anti-establisment attacks to HRC if she is the candidate. What is HRC going to do?

[MADem]

1. Anyone who can "jump to Trump" was never a Democrat.

They are fringe-y, angry Fuck Y'all Libertarians. They settled on Sanders because Rand didn't catch on.

And for every one of those Trump jumpers, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's at least one or two of those "loyal Republican women" who sidle quietly into the voting booth, look both ways, and vote for Clinton. Why? That's some of that 'Lady Parts' voting that is supposed to be The Crime of the Century. It's NOT, but some people are trying to pretend it's not a big deal if we have a woman POTUS. Sorry, it IS a big deal, if it wasn't, we'd have had at least a few females in charge by now.

[haikugal]

3. So what will she do? That's the question. nt

[MADem]

16. She who?

If you are talking about Clinton, what she'll do is win.

[haikugal]

24. She can't win with her baggage. She doesn't inspire anything more than yawns and eye rolls.

Good luck and remember it won't be our fault she's soundly whipped by tRump. Welcome to fascism America!

[MADem]

25. Hmm. So that explains that she won IA and NV with the full force of the Rovian disinformation

campaign in full swing against her? And that's why Sanders has effectively pivoted to OK and looks to be giving up on SC?



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-megadonors-219690

For someone who "can't win" she looks like she's winning to me.

[haikugal]

27. She has everything working for her and she still couldn't do more than win by a fewe percent.

That AND turnout was low, again. Dems aren't turning out...and that has nothing to do with tRump.

Bernie will make a good showing and he may take it. If he does I have hope for us, if not I don't have much hope.

[MADem]

28. She had Rove spending $113K to shit-stir against her, through ads and dirty tricks.

That was in the link I provided.

If you think Karl Rove throwing mud is having "everything working for" you, you have a strange idea of what that means.

Are you suggesting Sanders will take SC? I think you'd do well to give up on that notion. And that, I think, is the beginning of the end.

[kristopher]

36. ..... ....... .....

So what will she do
She can't win with her baggage.
She does not inspire
-haikugal

[arendt]

5. That's her defense? I'm a woman?

Are you capable of addressing the policy issues that Trump will certainly raise?

Hillary has a voting and speaking record. She started the War in Libya. She greenlighted the mess in Syria. Trump has been talking about the trillions wasted there. What is HRC's rebuttal? Its about time for a woman? Please, she is a warmonger.

As for women voting for her, we have HRC's latest foot in mouth: she could see abortion restrictions that take into account the health of the mother. That is an appalling position to take. Giving up before the fight is joined.

Have you got policy versus feminist unicorns?

[MADem]

15. Huh? Whose defense? No one is doing any defending, here.

I'm saying that for every Trump jumper, there will be GOP women who jump to HRC because she's a woman and it's time for a female POTUS.

You should try reading what people write. It aids discussion.


What does this even mean? It sounds a bit rude, snarky and sour grape-ish, but it doesn't make sense--just a bunch of words:

Have you got policy versus feminist unicorns?


You are boosting and cheerleading Trump in this thread. Are you even a Democrat? Are you a Trump supporter?

[arendt]

17. Artful Smear.

I am asking how HRC will defend herself (and me as a Democraat) from the obvious attacks that Trump will bring.

You keep trying to make it personal, like being rude and snarky is something that you never do. Someone is always hurting your feelings.

Not going there

You got policy or you got nothing.

[MADem]

19. What is this lame "artful smear" meme that I see repeated here any time someone sees an opinion they

don't like?

I don't "keep trying" to do anything. I think it's a bit odd to see someone bumping up Trump on this board. And you're not hurting my feelings, believe me. I'd have to care, you see.

HRC will defend herself with her superior debating skills. Trump will act like the ass he is, and he will implode.

What will happen, at the end of the day, is that she will be sworn in come January of next year.

[arendt]

22. Hey, your candidate started it.

We are all going to be "bumping into Trump" in the GE.

If you are so confident that HRC is the nominee, why can't you offer more concrete answers than "her superior debating skills" (LOL). That didn't work for John Kerry. The media is in the bag for the GOP. The GOP wants HRC to be nominee because the artillery is already registered on her.

[MADem]

23. I will wait and let the GOP pick their candidate.

I'm not betting on Trump as their candidate yet. He looks strong now, but it's still early days.

[arendt]

30. Anyone but Trump, and HRC will win, barring Fla-like, SCOTUS-like theft.

My concern is Trump. Hence, I am worrying about him now. If I'm wrong, what does it cost the world (other than me) to prepare to defeat him?

[freddyt]

35. "Superior debating skills"

LMAO! If Hillary doesn't have a talking point to utter after being spoonfed by her handlers, she sounds like babbling fool.

[haikugal]

2. Good question.

I've been asking myself that question. I don't see her, or us, winning that showdown. I'll go with Bernie because I know where he stands and with whom.

Well written OP...K&R...Thanks!

[tk2kewl]

4. if they don't jump they probably hide under the bed

And don't vote. Also not a positive for Hillary

[unblock]

6. the actual candidates matter less than most people think.

for the most part, most general elections are about change vs. status quo.

the popularity of both trump and sanders is worrisome in that it signals that the mood of the country is for change, i.e., a republican in the white house.

[arendt]

7. A non-establishment Republican

The 99% doesn't buy what the establishment of EITHER party is selling. The party that nominates the best non-establisment person wins.

If Cruz wins the GOP, HRC wins hands down, because Cruz is a dangerous nutcase.

But, if Trump wins, it is so hard to predict. Look at the photo of Bill and Hill at Trump's ?(daughter's)? wedding. Which party, if either, does Trump belong to. Answer: to his own party. And a lot of people might take the jump, because staying put is certain economic death.

[unblock]

11. lol. republican nominees are always dangerous nutcases.

who was the last one who wasn't? ford maybe? eisenhower?

anyway, whether people realize it or not, in the aggregate, they vote out the incumbent party if they want change, and they keep the incumbent party if they want the status quo. it doesn't much matter which candidate seems to embody change.

if people want to preserve the status quo, they'll vote for the democrat, even if it's sanders.
if people want change, they'll vote for the republican, even if it's rubio.

[arendt]

13. No. Its not that simple.

Not one and only one variable.

I might agree that status quo/change explains 50%-70% of the vote.

But, the other 30-50% is explained by party loyalty, candidate policy, candidate likability/charisma.

Do you think that your explanation works for the 2000 election? America was doing just fine at that moment. The bubble economy was in high gear. We hadn't had a real war in ten years. People should have been for the status quo.

What happened is that 2000 was won by voter disenfranchisment and SCOTUS cheating. It was influenced heavily by the DLC saddling Gore with that traitorous (to his party) asshole Joe Lieberman as VP. It was influenced by bullshit like "Al Gore invented the internet".

[MADem]

18. Gore won, and the SC stole that election from him. nt

[arendt]

20. Why was it close enough for him to win?

As I said, 2000 was a great year. Everything was great. Why was it close?

It was close because the press hated Gore, because the DLC put that closet Republican and full time religious hypocrite, Joe Lie-erman on the ticket. It didn't help that Gore put distance between himself and Clinton - lest he be tarred with the Monica Lewinsky brush.

Lot's of reasons that are nowhere near the status quo/change theory.

[arendt]

21. Excuse me, 'close enough to steal' n/t

[MADem]

26. It wasn't. Don't buy or "catapult" the propaganda.

"Shut it down!! Shut it down!!!"

Watch and remember.

[arendt]

29. Remember, this subthread is about status quo/change

We both agree that the vote was status quo, and the election was stolen.

The voter disenfranchisment in Florida, by Katherine Harris, set the stage for the Brooks Bros. riot in your picture.

I have no disagreement with you, only with the too simple idea that the electorate's will decides elections.

[MADem]

31. Now I agree and disagree with that conclusion--I think that electorates' wills do decide elections.

But I think they're mercurial at times, and easily led. They also enjoy fads (Pet Rock, Rubik's Cube, etc).

I thought it was funny as hell, for example, that after Nixon resigned, I couldn't find a single sorry so-and-so who would ADMIT they voted for him. I was in the "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" club, but I suddenly discovered that people who were avowed Republicans somehow either "sat that one out" or "forgot to vote," or actually claimed to have voted for McGovern! "Well, he was in the Army Air Corps, doncha know....!"

People love the Next Big Thing. And some people like to "goof" on their fellow man, which is why we see memes and other crazyness on the internet.

I think The Donald is running as good a show as Brewster, with his NONE OF THE ABOVE campaign!!

I think he may peak too soon, though. Also, if the shit hits the fan anywhere in the world, he won't look so good. His cachet relies on the world being a peaceful, boring, no violence/no natural disasters/no drama kind of place. I don't think that will last, it never does.

[unblock]

32. i didn't mean to imply that it was a single variable

check out lichtman's keys, he identified 13 factors. incumbent party candidate charisma and challenger party candidate charisma are two of them, but the rest, broadly speaking, assess how content people are to keep the status quo. that's just a high-level characterization, the keys are certainly more particular than that.

two of the keys relate to the economy, for instance. good economy means people are inclined to keep the incumbent party; bad economy means people are inclined to vote for the other party.

party loyalty and candidate policy don't seem to matter as much as people think, or at least, they follow from these other factors. if people really want change, then guess what, the challenging party candidate is likely to advance proposals seen as "change", e.g.


as for 2000, that's was obviously exceptional in many respects. i would argue that gore clearly won the popular vote and would have won the electoral vote had the election not been stolen in a number of ways; therefore, the "stay with status quo" expectation was actually met by the election, but stymied by the election counters.

[arendt]

37. Glad we are on the same page.

Can you give me a pointer to Lichtman?

[unblock]

38. sure, he's an old post of mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026878458


also you can google "lichtman's keys to the presidency" and find a bunch of links.

interestingly, he hasn't made his prediction for 2016 yet. that's not because of the actual nominee selection, because the only keys that matter are whether or not the nominees have charisma, and the bar is high -- reagan, jfk, fdr, or obama 2008. i think it's pretty clear that none of the potential nominees on either side have that level of charisma.

but a few keys remain unclear, such as whether or not there will be a major foreign policy disaster or success.

[tk2kewl]

8. we could nominate the candidate that actually

Represents a chance towards something more progessive than the status quo. That might give us better chance

[arendt]

9. True, but not the point of this OP.

The Dem Primaries have descended into trench warfare, and no one believes anyone's polls or endorsements or spin.

I want to talk about an HRC/Trump matchup because I think it may wake people up as to the consequences of the trench warfare.

[unblock]

33. in practice it's a tough sell. if people want change, they'll vote for the other party.

it's hard to run as the incumbent party candidate and sell change. well, the incumbent party candidate can talk about change, but if they win, it's probably because the people were fine with the status quo.

[MaggieD]

10. Trump has a disapproval rating of 57% - 60%

I'm sure Hillary will be fine.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. If you look at history, sadly, the "more entertaining" candidate usually wins.

I think that may be a problem, here.

[arendt]

14. I'm sad to not be able to dismiss that explanation. n/t

[unblock]

34. this is a known phenomenon when times are good.

in tough times, people want a leader to actually govern capably.

when times are good, people feel they can afford to be entertained. that's when we get leaders who deliver the tough times....

[demwing]

39. Do you fight "Change" with "No Change" or "Better Change"?

"Better Change" is political jiu jitsu, using the force of change to redirect the change.

That's Bernie.